MODULE 4: Political system, Structure and Political Culture

Topic 1: Executive-Legislative Relations

Fused powers and separated powers systems

● The criteria used when classifying government and/or political systems
● Parliamentary, semi-presidential and presidential systems
● Parliamentary systems
○ How members of the executive and legislative branches are elected/elected and their
accountability
● Semi-presidential and presidential systems
● How members of the executive and legislative branches are elected/elected and their
accountability

The Legislature: its Roles and Functions

● Policy-making body; a Parliament, a Congress, an Assembly
● The legislature as an AGENT, a PRINCIPAL and as LEGISLATOR
● The legislature as an AGENT
○ Linkage
■ Delegates
■ Trustees
○ Representation
■ Debating
○ Legitimation
● The legislature as a PRINCIPAL
○ Control: to check executive powers
○ Oversight: inquiry in aid of legislation, ie Pharmally
○ Budget: power of the purse, usually initiated by the lower chamber
● The legislature as LEGISLATOR
■ Policy making vs policy influencing
● Policy making
■ Consultation
■ Delay
● Policy influencing
■ Amendment (positive power)
■ Veto (negative power)

Organization structure or features of legislatures

● Number and type of chambers (unicameral, bicameral)
● Number, equality and consistency of members
○ Size
○ Committees
○ Permanency
○ Specialization
○ Temporary committees
● Rules of procedures
○ Hierarchical Structures and internal decision-making
 ● Institutional resources and distribution
○ Space/Place
○ Staff/People
● Assessing a legislature's power
● Types of legislature
○ Transformative
○ Arena
● Degrees of influence on policy
○ Can they modify and reject executive policy?
○ Must be able to impose constraints on the executive without risking retaliation
(Mezey, 1979)
● Degrees of public support
○ Strong public support strengthens legislative legitimacy
● Representing Voters
● Socialization and Recruitment
● Holding governments to Account

The Executive Branch: its roles, powers and functions

● Provides leadership
● Controlling the policy agenda
○ Ability to take the initiative
● Fulfilling an electoral mandate
○ Voters are more likely to expect the executive branch to implement their manifesto
promises than the legislature
● Implementing policy
○ The key role of the executive is to implement policy once it has been approved by the
legislature
● Personality in politics
○ The success of a political leader will depend in part on his or her ability to use the
resources at his or her disposal both personal and institutional.
○ Analysis of the executive has therefore often focused on the personality of the
president or the prime minister and their presentational flair.
● Executive branch on the rise, legislative power in decline
○ Media influence a factor

Theorizing executive-legislative relations

● The rational choice approach
○ Institutions are the outcome of strategic bargaining between self-interested actors.
● Cultural theorists
○ Institutions are the outcome of existing cleavage structures
● Comparative theorists
○ Sought to explore normative questions such as which type of regime
● Regime survival
○ Linz: parliamentary systems offer greater scope for resolving political tensions,
particularly in polarised societies.
○ Shugart and Carey: highlight the increased accountability and transparency of
presidential systems over parliamentary regimes
 ○ Horowitz: not the presidential/parliamentary split that matters, but the difference
between majoritarian and proportional electoral systems.
○ Mainwaring: despite proportional systems being more inclusive, they tend to disperse
power and make it difficult for governments to be effective.
● Regime performance
○ Weaver and Rockman:
■ It is important to explore the significance of ‘second’ and ‘third tier’ variables,
ie the role of the party, federal and unitary systems, bureaucracy and even
macro-economic factors.
● Institutional independence
○ Fused-power system, the legislature has more power and is centralized than the
executive.
● The role of political parties
○ A tool for garnering autonomy on the internal relations within the legislature.
● Party Organization
○ Plays a vital role in the re-election bid for most legislators

● Electoral Laws
○ Determines the natural behavior of the voter’s choices

Parliamentary vs Presidential

In a presidential system, both the executive and legislative branches of government are elected
separately in positions by the citizens. In a parliamentary system, the executive branch of the
government is set internally by the legislature. Furthermore, the executive branch is formally
responsible to the legislature throughout its term, meaning the unit can remove it from office at any
time, given that most of the parliament opposes it, regardless of the electoral cycle. Early elections in
most systems may accompany the removal of the executive by the legislature. Because the executive
is drawn from the legislative branch, and there is a high degree of mutual dependence between them.

The Philippines, with a Presidential system, conducts the national elections and votes for government
officials to sit in executive and legislative positions, while countries like the UK practice multiple
electoral systems to elect the parliaments, mainly the first-past-the-post.

Political parties in fused powers and separated powers

Political parties play a vital role and serve as powerful machinery to get candidates elected. In
separated powers, candidates with political parties are most likely selected by the people because of
the forces coming from their party that support them. On the other hand, in fused power, political
parties wield a lot of leverage in legislation depending on which party dominates the parliament. This
gives them more control to forward their agenda as a party.

Legislature as an agent

The legislature, as an agent, must link the citizens to the government and serve as an intermediary
between the constituency and the government. They must act as lines of information and amplify local
demands to be heard by the central government. In addition to them being the “bridge” between
citizens and government, they are also expected to represent their constituents and work to forward
their advocacies and lobby concerns. This enables them to serve public forums of debates. Public
debates have the capacity to impact public opinion, which means the legislature must foster debate
and discussions to serve as a tool for compromise between diverse groups with different views and
opinions. Ultimately, the ability to form linkages and foster debate makes for a legitimate legislator.
Furthermore, this legitimizing function of legislatures reflects their representational activities.

TOPIC 2: Electoral Systems and Political Participation

Electoral System - It is a set of guidelines that establishes the procedures for conducting and
determining the outcomes of elections and referendums. Governments are chosen through electoral
processes in politics, although non-political elections can occur in the business world, non-profit
organizations, and unofficial groups.

Types of Electoral Systems:

● Single-member Plurality - often known as "first-past-the-post" or "winnertake-all" systems,

merely provide a seat to the particular candidate who wins the most votes during an election.
The winner is determined by having more votes than all other candidates combined, not by
receiving a majority (50%+) of the vote. The majority of the time, plurality systems rely on
single-member constituencies and permit voters to mark only one vote on their ballot.

● Alternative Vote - Voters rate candidates according to their preferences in this election process.
A candidate is deemed elected if they earn the majority of first-preference votes. If no
candidate succeeds in getting over this obstacle, the last-place candidate is eliminated, and
then the second preferences of that candidate are distributed to other candidates, and so on,
until a candidate gets past the requirement of receiving 50 percent plus one of the vote.

● Two-round System - Another method of filling a single seat is through a tworound system. If no
candidate receives a majority of the votes in the first round, the second round is held with just
a select group of candidates, and the winner is determined by who receives the most votes.
method is used to elect presidents and parliaments in more than 20 nations, including France,
Iran, and several former French possessions.

● Proportional Represenatations - a form of electoral system in which political parties and other
political divisions within the electorate are represented proportionally.The notion mostly
relates to geographical (e.g., states, regions) and political (e.g., political party) divides within
the population. The most fundamental distinction between electoral systems is between those
based on singlemember constituencies in those based on PR in multi member constituency.
The essence of such systems is that all votes cast - or almost all votes cast - contribute to the
result and are actually used to help elect someone, not just a plurality, or a bare majority, and
that the system produces mixed, balanced representation reflecting how votes are cast

● Highest Average Method - A set of approaches known as the highest-averages method,

sometimes known as the divisor method, is used to distribute seats in a parliament among
agents like political parties or federal states
 ● Largest remainders methods - The largest remainder method, sometimes referred to as the
HareNiemeyer, Hamilton, or Vinton's methods, is one approach to proportionally distributing
seats for representative assemblies using party list voting systems. When compared to several
highest averages approaches (also known as divisor methods).

● Dimensions of variation - There are numerous election systems, but they only differ in a small
number of ways. Three are very significant. District magnitude is the first factor. This refers to
how many MPs were chosen from each constituency. The extent to which voters are able to
choose which of their party's candidates take the seats that the party wins is the second. A
third is about the difference. The concept of thresholds expresses the winning seat cult.
district-level size

● District magnitude - The main factor influencing whether an election system can convert
votes cast into seats won proportionally is district magnitude. The size of the district affects
political parties, candidates, and campaigns as well.

● Intra-party choice - The distribution of seats across parties has received a lot of attention thus
far, but some voters might be just as interested in the specific candidates running for those
seats. How much intra-party candidate choice is offered by the voting process? Because no
party fields more than one candidate in any single-member constituency system, there is no
intra-party choice; if a voter prefers a party but not its candidate or like a candidate but not her
party, he must grit his teeth and accept an unappealing alternative.

Electoral System (lower house)

Mixed system: 300 seats distributed randomly, 180 seats distributed according to proportional
representation For the 180 allotted by proportional representation, use the D'Hondt formula. Both the
proportional representation election and the single seat constituencies are open to candidates.
However, the single-seat district needs to be situated in their block for proportional
representation. In races for single seats, candidates must receive at least one-sixth of the total valid
votes to win.
There are 11 multi-member constituencies and 300 single-member constituencies (plurality
vote) (proportional representation vote)

Thresholds - electoral systems have some built-in mechanism to prevent very small parties from
winning seats; this can be justified on the grounds that it is desirable to prevent excessive
parliamentary strength fragmentation and to facilitate the formation of stable governments, though
of course it can also be motivated by other factors.
Thresholds come into play when the electoral system does not aim to achieve a "perfect
correspondence between vote shares and seat shares.

The most fundamental difference between electoral systems is between those that are based
on singlemember constituencies and those that are based on PR in multi-member constituencies.
All single-member constituency systems favor the strongest party in the district and
underrepresent the interests of other parties' voters.
PR systems vary in the degree of choice they give voters to express a choice among their
party‘s candidate non-PR systems do not give voters any intraparty choice

Electoral System Influences on Voting:

 This black-box explanation of the events is in some ways unhelpful. It works if one considers
representation in terms of the rational institutionalist account; the process takes an enormously
complicated set of desires and perspectives and converts them into a feasible and, presumably,
successful method of representation.
Nonetheless, if one considers representation in terms of the culturalist "microcosm"
paradigm, then the electoral system, beyond its necessity for selection purposes, might be viewed as a
dysfunctional black box in pursuit of that objective.

Might electoral systems discourage voting?

Most typically, electoral laws (rather than systems) are viewed as actively or passively
restricting voter participation, either directly or indirectly as a result of its restrictions. Literacy
requirements and other obstacles to voter registration have been used in a number of countries,
including the United States, to prevent particular populations from voting.
Similarly, the needs of the system may disenfranchise particular segments of society even
when there is no intention to do so. The time and effort required to register, if this is an active duty for
a citizen, or even to find the time to attend a polling station, may be prohibitive for some individuals
due to competing responsibilities, such as work or child care, geographic distance from a polling
station, or the physical ability to get to a polling station regardless of its proximity.

Does my Vote matter?

Once a voter arrives at the polling place, however, one can assume that all systems are
equivalent. First, voters are aware of the past impacts of the electoral system under which they will
vote. While they may not be familiar with the complexities of the d'Hondt formula or mathematical
measures of proportionality, they are aware that a 15,000-vote majority for an incumbent candidate in
a plurality system would necessitate a sea-change in the constituency that would be shockingly
evident if it were likely to occur.
In the plurality or majoritarian case, there may be dual disincentives to not vote. For
supporters of the incumbent, the perception that the candidate's majority is large enough for the voter
to abstain and yet achieve the desired outcome may encourage voter abstention. Such a majority may
appear insurmountable to supporters of the opposition candidates, rendering their time, effort, and
vote futile.

Can I make a difference by voting tactically?

The fear of "wasting" one's vote may not be sufficient to deter voting. Some voters may instead
engage in tactical voting. In a district where a less fortunate incumbent cannot be certain of a
15,000-vote majority, opposition supporters can contribute to the incumbent's defeat even if their
preferred candidate is expected to finish third or fourth.
Tactical voting, as a predominately rational activity,14 is typically observed in plurality and
majoritarian systems. In a list system, the proportion of votes a party list receives contributes to their
overall seat allocation; therefore, voting for a list other than the favorite is irrational, as it can only
decrease the party's proportion of the vote, no matter how insignificantly in the case of an individual
voter. In an STV system, as well as in any multi-member constituency system, the ranking of
preferences, allocation of quotas, and distribution of surpluses renders such logic unnecessary.

Splitting my Ticket
'Ticket-splitting' is a sort of strategic voting that allows voters in systems with several
institutions to express more than just their preference for a single candidate. 'Ticket-splitting' is
prevalent in mixed systems and any system with numerous institutions. In the Italian and German
electoral systems, voters cast ballots for both the constituency candidate and a list; however, there is
no requirement to vote for the candidate's party on the list. Sophisticated voting, in which the
constituency vote is cast using a majoritarian logic (that is, selecting a mainstream party with a
chance of winning) and the list vote is cast using a proportional logic (voting for a smaller preferred
party to increase their vote share), permits both pragmatic and ideological voting styles.

Do voters appreciate their potential effect?

Such issues need a level of political engagement and political understanding on the part of
voters. Such voters must be aware of the possibility of voting for multiple parties (a relatively low
threshold), the existence and relative strengths of parties (a higher threshold than one might expect),
and the political awareness of positioning vis-à-vis political parties that allows one to judge the value
of voting pragmatically in one ballot while maintaining ideological allegiance in another (a high
threshold).
There is evidence that, from the perspective of turnout, ballots that require more of voters may
disincentivize voting for those with lower "cognitive mobilisation, " that is, those who are less
educated, less engaged with the political system, socially dislocated, or otherwise less likely to engage
with a complex and nuanced electoral system. Such systems appear to turn off many voters with low
cognitive mobilization, but educated, politically engaged, and socially implanted citizens are more
likely to vote in such systems than in closed list and singlemember plurality systems.
It is always risky to presume that cross-sectional synchronic comparisons are good models for
single-nation diachronic comparisons, as we noted in respect to changes in the electoral systems.
Given that this is merely a statistical correlation and not an immutable law, an electoral engineer who
switched from a preference-ranking list to a closed list may not observe an increase in turnout among
less mobilized voters and a decrease among cognitively mobilized people. Participation is influenced
by numerous linked and confusing factors.

Voters do matter
Despite popular disinterest, voting systems and their impacts continue to fascinate scholars
due to their unique role in connecting mass publics to politics. In an era where direct democracy,
alternative representative forums, and community transnationalization are becoming more feasible
due to technology and infrastructure, elections remain the main political event of any given period for
most people, whether they vote or not.
Voters do matter It is undeniable that mass movements have had a revival in recent years,
with virtually linked global movements gathering concurrently in multiple countries to provide an
extra route for representation and voice. Their environment is both socio-cultural and political; a new
cultural tradition may be forming.
This complexity is a direct result of the social, cultural, and political environment of the time
in both instances. From the conflicting institutionalist viewpoints, the rational and cultural schools
are significantly more adept at accounting for the effects of electoral systems on the micro-activity of
actors, particularly in their synthetic structure.

Electoral manipulation can be a very unpredictable and perilous endeavor. Choosing which
electoral system to implement is crucial for newly democratized nations in terms of ensuring effective
government where possible during a period when a nation must have clear direction; representation of
minorities who, in the democratisation process, must be included as a prerequisite for liberal
democratic progress, regardless of cultural traditions and national stability; and political participation
by a newly enfranchised mass public.
If PR is implemented in a system with generally homogeneous and geographically scattered
social groups, there is unlikely to be an explosion of representation among new parties. As in Canada
or post-devolution Scotland, a geographically defined minority may find representation under a
majoritarian electoral system if accompanied by a degree of institutional autonomy and
well-apportioned seat boundaries. Equally, proportionality may provide support and representation for
groups that were not initially considered as desirable in this regard. The British electoral system may
undervalue the Liberal Democrats as a political party, but it also greatly contributes to the exclusion of
less beneficial movements like the British National Party.
The goal should be to guarantee that electoral reform is predicated on addressing specific
flaws in an election system or its outcomes. The pursuit of proportionality as an end in itself and
subsequent efforts to alter the system may not produce the expected or desired outcome.

Direct Democracy - The term the term direct democracy has its roots in the idea that, under the
institutions of representative government, the people's role in decisionmaking is only indirect, in that
they elect representatives who then make the decisions. it also has many connotations, both positive
and negative, as a result, many tend to give the phrase a wide berth and confine themselves to a
discussion of the referendum as an institution within the framework of representative democracy.

Referendum - A mass electorate votes on some public issue. Referendums take many forms,
depending on whether or not the people themselves can initiate a popular vote, on whether parliament
has discretion as to whether to decide a matter itself or put the issue to a referendum, and on whether
the verdict of the people is binding or merely advisory.

5 Dimensions of Referendum:
1. The holding of a referendum might be according to prescribed rules or at the discretion of a
political actor.
2. The referendum might be mandatory in the circumstances, or optional.
3. The referendum may take place at the request of a number of voters, or of a political
institution.
4. Its dimension concerns the relationship between those calling the referendum and those
whose proposal is being voted on.
● rejective referendums - a distinction between referendums on proposals that have not
yet come into force.
● abrogative/repealing referendums - to change an existing state of affairs
5. Its dimension is the significance of the referendum result, which may be binding/ may be
merely indicative of the public's views, with another actor such as parliament having the final
say.
Types of Referendum:
● Ad hoc Referendum - are those for which there is no fixed provision.
● Rejective Referendums - aim to prevent some proposal from passing into law or the
constitution
● Abrogative Referendum or Initiatives - aim to strike down an existing law or constitutional
provision
● Decision-promoting Referendum - an authoritarian leader makes a proposal and then calls a
popular vote to endorse this.
● Decision-controlling Referendum - an actor opposed to some proposal may invoke the people
as a potential veto player, are more common.
● Plebiscitarian Referendum
○ Negative - it implies a referendum staged by an authoritarian regime with the aim of
generating the appearance of popular support for a decision that in reality the people
had no possibility of rejecting.
○ International Law - it refers to a vote concerning a sovereignty issue such as
independence, self-determination, or border definition.

The Rationale of Referendum

Process-related Arguments Outcome-related Arguments

suggest that, regardless of the decisions suggest that the quality of decisions may be
reached, the very fact that they have been affected by the direct involvement of the voters.
reached through a referendum is important in
itself.
Empirical Patterns
Elsewhere, democracy is fundamentally representative in nature, and the referendum is a ind
of 'optional extra' that modifies, to a greater or lesser degree, the way in which the political process
functions. Referendum votes concern sovereignty-related questions such as independence, secession,
or the pooling of sovereignty. The rationale is that these are non-partisan issues that transcend the
day-to-day political warfare between parties and that the parties do not have the right to deicide on
the people's behalf

Impact of Referendums
Referendums make a significant difference to politics in a number of ways, most obviously to
policy outcomes. The expectation is that in most cases it would be a conservative impact, in that the
people are introduced to the decision-making process as an additional 'veto player'.
Major decisions involving sovereignty, or the allocations of values within a society, might not
be regarded as fully legitimate by opponents if theyr are taken solely by the political class. Testing
these propositions empirically; that policy innovation is slower in countries that employ the
referendum emjoy greater legitimacy than those made by representative institutions alone; would of
course be a challenge.
Moreover, the picture of voter incompetence can be disputed; even if voters do not possess
comprehensive information as they actually need. In addition, contrary to the claims that the media
can exert power over easily led voters, overt attempts by the media to sway opinion may actually prove
counter-productive.

Representation
Early modern meaning of representation is most usually associated with theatrical
characterization in the sense of how one person depicts another.
Representation became incorporated with the idea of a person acting legally ‘on behalf of
another’ , a view that reflects Hobbes (1961) Leviathan.
Notion representing the wishes of citizens, whether directly or indirectly, through mediators or
unmediated (Weale, 1999).
Representation can be unmediated and direct conception of democracy, just like what we
believe what classical Athenians practiced.

Microsomic
This suggests that an elected parliament or assembly should represent proportionately the
key characteristics of the citizen body.

Division of Labour Representation

Electors vote for representatives to look after their interests, seek redress for their grievances,
support appropriate legislation, report back on outcomes and be accountable for their actions. On the
other hand, representatives expect that their electors will continue to support their efforts and
continue to vote for them.

Why Should We Study Election?

This action of choosing for an office … or position; usually by vote … specifically, the choice by
popular vote of members of a representative assembly, e.g., the House of Commons’ .
 Formal expression of preferences by the governed which are then aggregated and transformed
into a collective decision about who will govern – who should stay in office, who should replace those
who have been thrown out’. (1987)
Elections are thus important not only for choosing representatives but also enable voters to
choose among different sets of policy programs, which are themselves reflective of different
ideological perspectives (Budge et al., 1997)

Types of Elections:
● Maintaining (Normal) Election- party vote shares change little and alignments existing prior to
the election are maintained.
● Converting Election- party vote shares are maintained but their underlying support patterns
change.
● Deviating Election- a short-term situation, exemplified by a sharp drop in support for a party
that is spread evenly across the electorate.
● Realigning or Critical Election- this breaks the existing mold.

Measuring Turnout
The proportion of the registered electorate who vote in a given election. (McLean, 1996).

Choosing an Appropriate Measure

Whichever variant of turnout we decide to use will depend on what we are using the measure
for and will also relate to the view of the researcher as to which errors are more dangerous—those
associated with the electoral register or those associated with the census.

Turnout as an Indicator of Participation

Turnout is seen as indicating a high degree of participation in the political system as long as it
remains buoyant and indicates that the great majority of voters cast a vote over the majority of
elections held.

Reasons why people choose not to vote:

● Modernization
● Social Change
● Dissatisfaction with Political Parties
● Dissatisfaction with Government
● Institutional Factors

How might theoretical model help us to explain falling turnout?

● Socio-cultural approaches- do not feel that they benefit by participation in elections for a
variety of reasons may help explain low turnout
● The party identification approach- They argued that political and social institutions, especially
class and the family, are the paramount influences in determining which party people vote for,
and how attachments to these particular parties persist over time.
● Rational choice approach- the electors will weight what options they have that gives them
more benefit with less cost

Political Parties A 'party' is a collective enterprise: that parties are seen as having aims which promote
the ‘national interest’ , that is the ‘good of the country’
Characteristics:
● bring people together so that they can ‘exercise power’ in the state
● seek to achieve their aims by legitimate means
● contest elections in order to monopolise public office
● endeavour to represent more than narrow interests
● group together people with similar values, beliefs or interests.

Ware: such interpretations are all flawed. Whilst in no way claiming to cover all eventualities,
● The focus of attention is on the centrality of the state as the object of activity.
● It recognises that many, or at least most, parties see being in government as the best means
of being able to exert ‘influence’.
● It is not restricted to liberal or representative democracies.
● It is able to distinguish parties from pressure groups.
● It avoids a central focus on the idea that parties must be united by shared principles.

How Should We Compare Political Parties?

There are thousands of parties operating in the contemporary world and some countries have
very many parties that operate within the electoral arena, although of course many will never get
elected to parliaments.
In the comparative analysis of political parties, especially when we try to compare them across
national boundaries, we are often confronted by large numbers of parties that might have similar
names but differ considerably in terms of principles or policy.
They tend to be grouped together with Christian democratic parties, which often avoid
traditional conservatism. It would thus seem appropriate to begin by categorising parties according to
factors that can help account for their nature in terms of underlying values, principles and policy. This
has been an ongoing concern of political scientists since the 1950s.

Party ‘families’ as a basis for comparison

● Shared ‘genetic’ origins – such as formation during a particular period in response to a
particular set of circumstances or with the intention of representing similar specific interests,
for example agrarian parties or socialist parties.
● Formal links to similar parties across national boundaries – often on ideological grounds, such
as party groupings in European parliament, or the Socialist International.
● Shared approaches to policy – although the ‘same’ policy might mean different things in
different contexts.

Major 'party families'

● Party families of the left – comprising socialists/social democrats, communists, parties of the
new left and other variants.
● Party families of the right and centre – comprising Christian democrats, ‘secular’
conservatives, liberals and parties of the far right.
● Other party families – a varied category which includes agrarians, greens, nationalists,
regionalists, ethnic parties and special interest parties

Supporters and Voters: Who Votes for Whom and Why?

● The Lipset–Rokkan model - provides a viable explanation of the emergence of modern parties
and the party system but is not appropriate as an explanation of current parties or party
systems.
 ● The partisan identification model - argue that people as individuals develop abiding loyalties
to particular parties on the basis of closeness of fit between that party’s position on a variety
of issues and the individual’s own values and attitudes.
● The Michigan model - voting choices are dependent on three factors – the voter’s
interpretation of candidates, party policies and party links with groups.
○ the majority of voters form an attachment to a political party which is generally
‘inherited’ from their families; t
○ his ‘party identification’ helps the voter to filter political information and know which
party to vote for; as people maintain their allegiance for longer time periods, the
attachment grows stronger. Changes are generally a function of an individual’s
changing circumstances and are associated with factors such as social mobility or
migration;
○ people may vote against their party at certain times while retaining overall
partisanship

● Partisan dealignment - as a ‘weakening in party loyalties’

○ First, the decline of class and religious loyalties reduces ... the traditional social base of
many parties.
○ Second, the expansion of education encourages the growth of middle class radicalism
and also gives more voters the skills needed to analyse politics in a less partisan
fashion.
○ Third, the emergence of television reduces the functional significance of parties as
channels of communication and replaces a partisan medium (the press) with
independent news medium
● The rational choice model - that the voter recognises his own self-interest, evaluates
alternative candidates on the basis of which will best serve this selfinterest, and casts his
vote for the candidate most favourably evaluated

Modifying the Models: Short-term Effects related to media, party leaders or, especially, the state of
the economy. These are not mutually exclusive.
● Weakening party loyalties render voters more open to receiving information about ‘other’
parties.
● New issues and events became prominent, for example, energy crises, environmental
concerns, failure of welfarism and the end of the Cold War, which gave media an advantage in
providing information.
● Ubiquity of television and advances in technology meant that almost all people in
representative democracies could be reached with powerful, visual images.
● Media also built on its image of impartiality and credibility. Media, especially television, began
to create an agenda for political discussion.

TOPIC 3: Political Parties, Party Systems and Interest Groups

● Political parties are the central actors in democratic politics, as well as in many authoritarian
and totalitarian regimes.
● It is unlikely that social movements or governance networks will replace the parties’ many
roles
a political party is an autonomous group of citizens having the purpose of making nominations and
contesting elections in the hope of gaining control over governmental power through the capture of
public offices and the organization of the government’—in order to highlight the issues involved.
­Huckshorn explicitly combines four elements common to many definitions, and implicitly adds
another.

Elements:
● Objectives: ‘gaining control over governmental power through the capture of public offices and
the organization of the government.
● Methods: making nominations and contesting elections and the organization of the
government.
● Competition - expressed in the ‘contesting’ of elections and the ‘hope [as opposed to the
certainty] of gaining control’.
● Autonomous - disqualify the parties of ‘one-party’ states, although on the other side these
parties may claim to be facing real, if clandestine and illegal, opposition from ‘counter-­
revolutionary forces’.

Ultimately, what Huckshorm tries to point out is that a party is a composition or a group of citizens
that has some level of coherence that allows them to coordinate their actions and to maintain an
identity over time.

Similar to Huckshorn, here is a suggestion from Katz, 1987 on a party within the model of democratic
party government:

the continuous concept of “partyness: (ppt)

● (1) Exhibiting team-like behavior;

● (2) in attempting to win control overall political power; and
● (3) basing claims of legitimacy on electoral system

It was in the sixteenth to nineteenth century when modern parties were witnessed. It was initiated by
those who were excluded from assemblies, leading to the observation that collective efforts are better
than individual actions taken. Earlier parties were also stated to have intra-parliamentary origin, an
evident example would be the British parliament in the seventeenth century.

The functions of parties

1. Coordination
2. Contesting elections
3. Recruitment
4. Representation

Coordination

- Particularly, the function of connecting society and the state is frequently identified as
‘linkage’. Under this, including Coordination within government, this implies that parties are
acting as a bridge between the legislative and executive branches. Coordination between
levels of government is also being structured. Coordination within the government takes place
in party caucuses, parliaments, leaders, etc.
- Contains coordination within society, this means that parties relay and organize the political
activity of citizens. For example, parties conduct political education, discussion about
pressing issues, and the coordination of collective action.
 - Includes Coordination between government and society this means that would be the linking
of a group of active citizens of a political tendency and a party that would claim to have been
supporting the same movement or ideology.

Contesting elections

- Meaning parties provide candidate that is vying for positions.

- In most political systems, parties raise and spent campaign funds for the candidate. In return,
candidate advocates for formulated and agreed political positions.

Recruitment

- Recruitment pertains to the search for someone willing to do the job while selection, means
choosing among multiple aspirants.

Representation:

- This means parties speak and act for their supporters, serve as agents of the people, and
represent citizens in the sense of being the organizational embodiment in the political sphere
to which people affiliates themselves into.

Models of Party Organization

Cadre or elite parties

- The earliest ‘modern’ parties were the cadre (or elite or caucus) parties that developed in
European parliaments
- As electorates expanded, elite parties in some places developed more elaborate local
organizations.

Mass parties

- Developed from the second half of the nineteenth century.

- typically has its extra-parliamentary origin.
- This type of political party that developed around cleavages in society and mobilized the
ordinary citizens or 'masses' in the political process.
- However, in reality, is often different. In theory proposed by Robert Michels ‘iron law of
oligarchy’ pertains to the internal party democracy leads to the domination of the elite or small
group of people.

Catch-all parties

- The mass party originated primarily as the vehicle of those groups that were excluded from
power under the régimes censitaires.
- Aims to attract people with different political views.
- A party model created having the form of mass party but organized as the supporters of the
party in public office rather than its leaders.

Cartel Parties
 - Mainstream parties formed a cartel to protect themselves from electoral risks and to
supplement their decreasingly adequate resources with subventions from the state
- Seen as agencies of the state rather than of society for defending policies of state and have
reduced representing the society.
- Cartel parties removed possible source of challenges to the leaders by replacing politically
experienced staff with privileged consultants.

Anti-cartel parties

- This type of party is called ‘left-libertarian’ or ‘new right’ parties. They tend to expect a much
deeper commitment from their members than catch-all parties or cartel parties.
- Anti-cartel parties are way similar to mass party, but are organized around an idea rather than
a social grouping.

Niche Parties

- these parties focus on issues other than those (generally economic) issues emphasized by the
major parties and on the representation of minority groups
- Like niche firms in economic markets, niche parties do not try to broaden their appeal, but
rather try to monopolize a limited segment of the electorate.

Business-firm parties

- An alternative form of challenger to established parties.

- While there may be an organization on the ground to mobilize supports to cheer on leaders, it
is only a lightweight organization with the sole basic function of mobilizing short-term
support at election time.

Parties in the US

Parties in the US appear to have much in common with the cadre party. What parties have in common
are

● Weak central organization

● Focuses on individual candidates rather than enduring institutions
● Absence of formal membership organization.
With regards to the federal nature of US, the basic unit of party organization is state party. The national
committees of the two parties, which control the national party central offices and elect the national
chairmen, are made up of representatives of the state parties.

Three (3) key features of the American Legal System of party regulations are

1. The use of primary elections

2. The vacuous definition of party membership and;
3. The candidate-centered nature of party regulation.

American law treats registrants as if they were members in a more substantive sense, but has no
control over who registers as member.

Membership

● All modern parties claim to have membership organizations. Modes of acquiring membership
and size of membership organization varies widely among parties.
● Membership remains important to the self-understanding of many parties, and the idea that
party leaders should be responsible to a membership organization has been widely embraced
as necessary element of democratic governance.

Three ways to measure membership:

1. Raw count of members

2. The ratio of party members to the size of the electorate
3. Organization density

Regulation

● An increasing number of countries have enacted special ‘party laws’, either supplementing or
replacing legal regimes that treated parties as simply one more category of party association.
● Number of specific justifications have been offered in favor of special party laws and can be
categorized into three groups:
● Centrality of parties to democracy. This has been acknowledged in the national constitution,
stating that its importance has been a justification for giving the parties special rights,
protection, or privileges beyond those that would normally be granted to an ordinary private
association.
● A party law may be justified as a matter of administrative convenience or necessity.

Finance

● Supplemented by requirements of public disclosure of sources of income, objects of

expenditures, or both.
● Regulation of spending- synonymous with regulation of campaign spending. These regulations
take three general forms: bans on particular forms of spending, limitations on total spending,
and required disclosure of spending.
● Regulation of fundraising- Contribution limits are designed to prevent wealthy individuals or
groups from exercising undue influence over parties.
 ● Public subventions- Considered as public support for parties. A growing number of countries
provide support for parties, through their tax systems, through direct financial subventions. In
some cases, these supports are tied to election campaigns.

Parties and the Stabilization of Democracy

Parties were central to the transition from traditional monarchy to electoral democracy in the first
wave of democratization.

In older democracies, parties helped integrate newly enfranchised citizens into the established
patterns of competition when suffrage reached the majority of citizens.

In immigrant societies, parties contributed to the integration of arrivals into their country. This
happened to countries such as US, Canada, Australia or in South America wherein parties have got to
do this because of the load placed upon them by the rapidity of suffrage expansion.

The levels of literacy, general education, access to mass media, and international involvement
because of party system and democratization in the late twentieth century far exceeded earlier waves.

Political parties remain central to democratic government in the twenty-first century. Nonetheless,
parties face a number of potentially serious challenges.

The role of parties as representatives of the people, or as links between the people and the state, has
also been challenged by the increasing range of organizations that compete with them as ‘articulators
of interest’. Rather than being forced to choose among a limited number of packages of policy stances
across a range of issues—some of which may be of little interest, and others which he/she may
actually ­oppose—the modern citizen can mix and match among any number of groups, each of which
will reflect his/her preferences more accurately on a single issue than any party could hope to do. With
improved communications skills, and especially with the rise of the internet, citizens may feel less
need for intermediaries—they can communicate directly with those in power themselves.

POLITICAL SYSTEM
What is the function of this?
The shape and dynamics of party systems are determined by the electoral game in which
parties are the main actors. So a political system is a way of organizing elections in which different
political parties compete against each other. However, parties also cooperate with each other when
building a coalition to support a government. 
The three main elements of party systems address topics such as relating to the genealogy of
party systems, relating to the morphology of party systems, and to the dynamics of it which makes
these points relevant. 

THE GENEALOGY OF PARTY SYSTEM

The ‘National’ and ‘Industrial’ revolutions

Most contemporary parties and party families originated from the radical socio-economic and
political changes between the mid-nineteenth century and the formation of the nation-state
(culturally homogeneous and centralized-political units), and liberal democracy
(parliamentarian, individual civil and voting rights, equality, and secular institutions)
 These two sets of transformations caused unprecedented levels of social and political
mobilization.

The industrial and national revolutions created socioeconomic and cultural divisions
opposing different social groups, elites, sets of values, and interests.

LIPSET AND ROKKAN NAMED THESE CONFLICTS:

Cleavages - modern states can be classified according to two dimensions:

● Territorial: at one end are territorialized conflicts that oppose peripheral regions to the center
of the state (its elites and bureaucracy); at the opposite end are non-territorial conflicts
between groups within the very center of the state
● Functional: at one end are conflicts about resources and their (re)distribution between social
groups (e.g. economic interests); at the opposite end are conflicts on moral principles (e.g.
religious values)

CLEAVAGES AND THEIR POLITICAL TRANSLATION

Political parties are the product of the parliamentary and electoral game, and party systems
reflect the social oppositions that characterize society when parties first appear.

(1) Centre-periphery cleavage (National Revolution)

This conflict emerged when nation-states formed and integrated in the nineteenth century,
and political power, administrative structures, and taxation systems were cenrtalized.
Nationalist and liberal elites carried out state formation and nation-building, facing
resistance from subject populations in peripheral territories in two aspects: Administrative, and
Cultural.
Resistance to administrative centralization and cultural standardization was expressed in
regionalist parties such as the Scottish National Party, the Swedish Party in Finland, the various
Basque and Catalan parties in Spain, the parties of the German and French-speaking minorities in
Italy, the Bloc Quebecois in Canada, and so on, opposing nationalist/liberal parties
(2) State-church cleavage (National Revolution)
Rose when liberal ideology have promoted secular institutions, individualism, and democracy.
This was opposed by the conservatives who defended monarchy at that time. To a large extent, this
was a conflict between the rising industrial bourgeoisie and the corporate privilege of clergy and
aristocracy. 
(3) Rural-urban cleavage (Industrial Revolution)
This cleavage focused on trade policies, with agrarians favouring trade barriers for the
protection of agricultural products (protectionism) and industrialists favouring free market and trade
liberalization with low tariffs (liberalism)
(4) Workers-employer cleavage (Industrial Revolution)
This is the cleavage between the industrial entrepreneurial bourgeoisie who started the
Industrial Revolution and the working class that resulted from it. It is the opposition between ‘capital’
and ‘labour’ which in the present characterizes the left-and-right alignment.
(5) Communism-socialism cleavage
The main issue was the acceptance of the lead of the soviet communist party in the
international revolutionary movement and also ideological difference, namely whether a revolution
would be necessary to take the ploretariat to power, or if this goal would be achieved through electoral
means.
(6) Materialism-post-materialism cleavage
A cleavage between generations over sets of socio political values energed in the 1960s and
1970s as a consequence of the protracted period of international peace, economic wealth, and
domestic security since the end of the second world war.
(7) Globalization Cleavage
Economic globalization has created a further post-industrial cleavage betweeen sectors of the
economy that profit from the blurring of economic boundaries, and sectors that are negatively
affected by the competition from new markets and cheap labour from east and asia.

VARIATION IN CLEAVAGE CONSTELLATIONS

Cleavage constellations changes through space (from country to country) and over time.

SPACE: There is a variety of constellations and, thus, of party systems. The left-right cleavage exists
everywhere and is a source of similarity, the state-church cleavage was strong in regions with small
farming and independent unit, where farmers were not under the control of landlords. The
centre-periphery cleavage appears where ther are ethno-linguistic minorities.

There is a variety of constellations and thus party systems. Generally, two types of
constellations are distinguished:
1. Homogeneous constellations– There is one predominant cleavage namely left-right cleavage
on the distribution of resources between classes and;
2. Heterogeneous constellations– Various cleavages—economic, ethnolinguistic, religious,
territorial— overlap one another. 

TIME: Over time, cleavage constellations and party systems have remained extraordinarily stable. This
has been called the freezing hypothesis as observed that up to the present, even party labels have not
changed. After multiple kinds of research done overtime, it was concluded that even after the rise of
new cleavages and how it was dramatically realigned, it does not seem to have taken its place to party
systems, maintaining the validity of freezing hypothesis.

THE MORPHOLOGY OF PARTY SYSTEMS:

The shape of the party system is a prominent element in a competitive interaction between
parties. The morphology of party systems is important for understanding the competitive interactions
between parties. The following are the party systems present today with their features:

Dominant-party systems is characterized by:

● One large party with more than absolute majority of votes and seats. 
● No other party approaching 50%.
● No alteration.
● one-party government.
Two-party systems 
● Two large parties sharing together around 80% of votes and seats.
● Balanced (35-45% each) with one of two reaching 50% of seats.
● Alteration between parties.
 ● One-party government.
Multi-party systems 
Two types of multiparty systems:
- Moderate multi-party system
- Polarized multi party system
● Several of many parties, no one approaching 50% of votes and seats. 
● Parties of different sizes.
● Parties run for elections individually and form coalitions after elections.
● Alteration through coalition changes.
● Coalition government. 

Bipolar systems 
● Two large coalitions composed of several parties sharing together around 80% of votes and
seats.
● Coalitions are balanced with 40-50% each.
● Coalitions are stable over time and run elections as electorate alliances.
● Alteration between coalitions.
● Coalition government.

THE NUMBER OF PARTIES

The number of parties is important, but how does this work? It is necessary to have reasonable
rules to decide whether a party is ‘relevant’ or not, and counter or not. The following are ways to count
parties:

(1) Numerical Rules:

These quantitative attempts to classify party system on the basis of the number and size of
parties that compose them.
In numerical rules: 
● The most straightforward way of counting is obviously done by deciding to include all parties
above a given threshold.
● Similar methods include Rokkan’s method to classify party systems through an index based
on the distance of the largest party from 50 percent absolute majority, the distance of second
party from the first, and so on.
● Lijphart devised an index based on the sum of parties’ percentages in decreasing order until
50 per cent is reached:  the larger the number of parties needed to reach the absolute majority,
the more fragmented the party system. 

(2) Qualitative Rules:

Small parties are much more important than tier sheer size would suggest. However, often
smaller parties are separate from the counting in numerical rule, and this may have far-reaching
implications for coalitions, influencing important decisions, mobilizing people in demonstrations, and
so on. Sartori, in 1976 has developed two criteria to decide which parties really count and should be
counted. Under qualitative rules:
- Coalition potential:
A small party is irrelevant if, over a period of time, it is optional for any type of
governmental coalition. A party must be counted, regardless of its size, if it’s pivotal and
determines whether or not a coalition is going to exist and which.
- Blackmail potential:
 A small party must be considered relevant when is it capable of concerning itself with
governmental decisions.

THE INFLUENCE OF ELECTORAL LAW ON THE FORMAT OF PARTY SYSTEMS

Two sets of causes have been identified:

1. Electoral system:
a. Are mechanisms for the translation of votes into parliamentary seats?
b. The first and best-known formulation of the causal relationship between the electoral
and party system is Duverger’s Laws.
c. Two laws are simple: plurality or majoritarian electoral systems favour two-party
systems, whereas PR leads to multi-party systems. These are both due to mechanical
and psychological effects.
d. Mechanical effects refer to the formula used to translate votes into seats. In this case,
electoral systems with high thresholds of representation exclude small parties from
parliament, whereas PA allows small parties to win.
e. Psychological effects refer to the awareness of voters and parties of mechanical
effects. Under plurality systems, voters vote strategically, avoiding small parties. Under
PR voters votes sincerely for small parties which are not penalized and have no
incentive to merge.

Cleavages
The presence of numerous cleavages lead to more parties than in culturally homogeneous
countries. As a recent article by Colomer (2005) argues, PR electoral systems are the result of an
already existing political fragmentation and not the other way around. 

THE DYNAMICS OF PARTY SYSTEM

As the definition of democracy was said to be rules for selecting political leaders by means of
competition of votes, it led to developing analogies between electoral competition and market
competition. I will be mentioning the keypoints taken from the analogy.

Market analogy
It is one of the most influential works in the comparative party systems literature. Actors here,
the parties and voters think rationally. These rational citizens vote on the basis of a self interested
calculations, like how consumers calculate the benefit between packages. The parties on the other
hand are like competitive businesses establishing the likes of the people in order for them to sell
more. Following the logic of supply and demand

Spatial analogy
The idea of the distance between individual preferences and parties’ policies indicates that
players move in the space of competition. This analogy comprises two dynamic elements. (1) the
movement caused by the search for the optimal location; (2) the appearance of new competitors in
spaces left uncovered. Equilibrium is reached when no competitors has an interest in changing its
position along the axis. Downs’ adapted models of the dynamics of competition between firms, that
is, where firms locate premises according to the physical distribution of the population. 

DOWN’S MODEL
 Through the spatial analogy between physical and ideological space, Downs imports these
analyses into electoral studies. The elements are:
(1) the one-dimensionality of the space,
(2) the principle according to which costs are reduced by choosing the nearest option
(proximity),
(3) competitors’ search for the optimal location through a convergence toward the center. 

Both Hotteling and Smithies had previously applied spatial models to politics through
analogies with the ideological space and were able to predict that parties tend to converge toward one
another in the effort to win the middle-of-the-road voters, and to present increasingly similar
programmes and policies.

THE WIDER APPLICATION OF RATIONAL CHOICE MODELS

Party organization– Rational choice models help to interpret the transformation of parties.
This transformation can be seen as the organizational and ideological adaptation to competition. 
Dealignment– These models help to interpret patterns of dealignment, which is the loosening
of relationships between parties. 
Enfranchisement and democratization - Enfranchisement and democratization processes in
the second half of the nineteenth century and first two decades of the twentieth radically changed the
shape of the distribution of electors as represented by the dashed curve, making it more similar to a
normal curve. This new distribution explains the emergence of new parties C and/or D ‘external origin’
PR and Multi-party systems - Under FPTP, convergence is likely because the threat of other
parties appearing at the extremes are low, given the high threshold required to win seats. First,
Multi-party systems occur when PR electoral systems allow a lower threshold of representation.
Second, multi-party systems develop when the distribution of electorate is dal. In conclusion, the
crucial determinant is the distribution of electorate. If we know the shape of the curve, we can predict
the behavior of parties.

Interest Groups (Caramani)

➔ Political science often associates interest group studies with the study of political
participation, linking it to the study of electoral politics, campaigns and elections.
➔ Interest groups linked to Europe and Japan: political economy & the relationship of state and
society.
➔ Interest groups in the US: focused on congress, adjacent to legislative studies.
*the cost of this diversity is the ambiguity in terms (open in more interpretation)*
*the benefit of this diversity is the possibility of a larger scope of studies that contributes to
the understanding of government and politics*
*contributes in large bodies of literature in formal theory and the study of like how power can
be dispersed among numerous groups who have the capacity to influence public policy*
➔ Interest groups are membership organizations and advocacy groups that make policy-related
appeals to the government (Baumgartner & Leech 1998).

Interest Groups and Political Participation

➔ This concept studies the reasons why people join interest groups and the consequences of
these reasons on political systems.

Interest Group Formation and Maintenance

 ➔ Started from voluntary organizations that are more linked to religiosity rather than unique
culture.
➔ Even when religious membership was removed, there’s still questions about the continuity in
voluntary organizations.
➔ The transition in the formation of interest groups came until membership is required as a
form of employment.
➔ Thus much interest group activity is conducted by institutions in which membership, if not
participation, is not a voluntary activity.

Olson’s ‘The Logic of Collective Action’ and Responses to it

➔ Olson argued that interest groups are formed and maintained in response to ‘selective
incentives or by-products that benefit the individual member.
➔ It is not rational for someone to join an interest group for the collective good because the cost
that the individual incurs will offset the performance of the group.
➔ The issue about membership in the lens of economic groups is the difficulty in creating an
interest group that pursues widely dispersed non-excludable benefits. The problem of
collective action prevents interest group activity in pursuit of public interests (according to
Olson).

Group Elections
➔ The success of public interest groups in an era where political parties in western democracies
are having a difficult time to gain members gave importance to interest groups as a means of
political participation.
➔ There are times soft money from interest groups to funnel political parties intended for these
specific candidates.

Interest Groups and Institutions

Whom to Lobby
➔ Interest groups are a purposive organization that focuses their energies in ways and places
that maximizes their chance of success.
➔ Interest groups must act in a way that impresses members.
➔ When interest groups try to influence public policy, they tend to succeed.
➔ Interest groups will focus their efforts on those institutions that have the most power and on
where they can exert influence.
*in the lens of UK, their interest groups paid less attention to the parliament because of its
limited roles in formulating public policy*
*interest groups in US paid less attention to the presidency because they doubt the capacity of
this institution*
➔ When institutions gain power, they attract greater attention from interest groups as long as
it's plausible.
➔ In the US, the focus of interest groups in congress is so well known.
➔ Congress plays a much more important role in policy-making than other legislatures.
➔ The combination of power of congressional committees over agencies and legislatives created
sub-governments or the three sided relationship of legislators, interest groups, and agencies
that led public policy being directed towards satisfying the interest groups, not the public
interest but of course did not last long.

Approaches to Lobbying other Institutions

 ➔ Institutions have a strong effect in shaping interest group configurations. In many cases,
interest groups have been sponsored and promoted by the government. More generally,
institutional frameworks shape interest group structures. Fragmented institutions lead to
fragmented interest group systems. Political institutions that centralize power lead to more
unified interest groups.

Determinant on Interest Group Strategies

➔ Descriptive rather than theoretical
➔ Insider strategy & outsider approach
➔ Insider strategy; attempt to establish a close, confidential relationship with a government
department and eschew military tactics or large-scale demonstrations
➔ Outsider Strategy; mass outside participation, more explicitly premised on stressing the
electoral connection than traditional lobbying.

Interest Group and State-Society Relation

➔ Relationship between capital, agriculture, labor, and government.

The Central Role of Business

➔ Farmers and unions are key players in the interest group politics of all democracies.
➔ Business as a social partner and not a mere interest group
➔ In most democracies, business does not really involve themselves that much in politics to
establish an image of being nonpartisan and therefore be recognized as a partner.
➔ CME’s (allocation of resources that includes investment capital and made not only through
market mechanisms but through integrated activities of firms, banks, and governments (US
and UK markets)
➔ Business organizations are not merely interest groups, they are partners of the government
that provides essential service and solves problems (this idea is more visible in
neo-corporatist countries).
➔ Neo-corporatism is not only a forum of partnership between government and business, but
also it explains the idea that businesses are societal systems that take responsibility in
addressing societal problems.
➔ Lindblom argued that business has a privileged position because it can switch investment to
different locations
➔ States that treats business less favorably will receive less investment or a decline of standard
in their living
➔ The privileged position argument does make a compelling case for seeing business as not just
another interest group.

The Changing and Weakening Role of Labour

➔ Labor unions had a special character as interest group
➔ Unios defined their role as mere bargaining agents for higher wages, as an organization for the
promotion of the working class
➔ The only political task for unions was to secure a legal environment that will allow them to
exert power in collective bargaining (in american lens)
➔ In neo-corporatist nations, unions also wanted to be recognized as social partner on par with
business
➔ Union have lost power all around the world due to the decline of employment in traditionally
unionized industries such as coal mining
 ➔ This decline of unions demonstrates the importance of government policies on interest
groups in contrast to the impact of interest groups to government policies

Interest Groups and Normative Theory

➔ Looks in the broader position in the economy and society on the political economy perspective
on interest groups
➔ In US and UK, they view interest groups like businesses or unions as a harm to economic
success
➔ Interest create policies that interferes with market efficiencies by making them pay rents
➔ The gains of the interest groups at the cost of economic efficiency will led to decline of nations
➔ The roles of business are embedded on the varying form of capitalism that exist
➔ But at least some time in these places, interest groups can have an important role in
governance
➔ The subject matter of interest group have a relevance to normative political theory
➔ Empirical studies of interest group have been related to these normative concerts in a way
that scholars questions the power which the minority holds and what is the difference
between those minorities that are and are not presented
➔ Groups could be training grounds for citizens, providing more direct experience
➔ The development of groups providing a civil society allowed the transition from authoritarian
to a more democratic society

Conclusion
➔ Interest groups play in important role in linking state and society
➔ The role of interest groups as social partners is democratically important as this represents a
form of pluralism and diffusion of power outside the state
➔ The glory and problem of interest groups as a field of comparative politics is that it is a
meeting ground for scholars motivated by contrasting interest.

Interest Groups (Bara)

Introduction
➔ One of the most topical issues in political science in recent years has been an attempt to
describe and account for the rise of ‘direct action’ politics, including the growth of various
protest groups or ‘new social movements’ that have sought to influence political events
outside of formal institutional channels.

Defining Interest Groups

➔ Interest groups account for a substantial proportion of civil society.
➔ As such, interest groups are organizations that seek to influence government policy, but which
do not formally become part of the apparatus of political parties or the state.

Economic interest groups/sectional interest groups

➔ To speak of an economic interest group is to speak of a group that is focused on
predominantly material or pecuniary (relating to money) interests.
➔ People who join such organizations are usually expecting some kind of monetary benefit from
their membership or participation.
 ➔ Trades unions and employers associations are typical of economic interest groups – they seek
policies that will increase the income or job security of their members.
Cause Groups/Attitude Groups
➔ It is usually the lack of such a common, objective characteristic, which distinguishes cause or
attitude groups from economic or sectional interests.
➔ Cause groups are organizations lobbying for a set of values or attitudes rather than the
interests of a particular segment of society. *Typical examples include pro- and anti-abortion
interest groups, environmental movements, animal rights groups and peace campaigners*

Interest groups as ‘ideal types’

➔ It is important to note that the distinction drawn between economic/sectional interest groups
and cause/attitude based groups is an example of what political scientists refer to as ‘ideal
typical’ analysis.
◆ An ideal typical economic interest group is thus one where the membership is decided
solely by some underlying economic characteristic common to the group members.
◆ An ideal typical cause group is one where the membership is decided solely by ones
subjectively choosing to support a particular cause or value system.
➔ Membership, therefore, is no longer linked to the objective occupational characteristic of
being a farmer, but to a looser, more subjective set of concerns and values.
➔ Similarly, some cause or attitude groups may have characteristics that put them closer to the
sectional interest category. Women’s rights and gay rights organizations, for example, may
have sectional characteristics to the extent that their target memberships are made up of
people who share the trait of being female or gay, respectively – though membership of such
groups may in principle be open to men and heterosexuals who happen to subjectively
support the causes concerned.
➔ Ideal types may rarely exist in practice, but they are nonetheless useful to political scientists
because they facilitate the categorisation of different groups in terms of how closely they
accord with the particular ideal.

Comparing Forms of Interest Representation

➔ Interest group activity in the political system may be seen in large part to reflect the
shortcomings of electoral participation as a tool of expression and democratic accountability.
➔ Systems of proportional representation, for example, while they may allow voters to express a
preference for more than one party, cannot allow the expression of preferences on an issue by
issue basis.
➔ Participation in a range of different interest groups, by contrast, may enable individual
political actors to express a more varied set of concerns. The form in which these interests are
articulated, however, tends to vary according to the character of the political system, the
nature of the issue at hand and the character of the particular interest organization.
➔ While the bureaucracy tends to be a key point of call for interest groups across all states, the
extent to which individual legislators or party political structures are targets of lobbying effort
varies in accordance with the character of the party system.
➔ The degree of competition between interest groups in different political systems is a further
factor that varies across states. Within this context, many political scientists have focused on
the distinction between states characterized by ‘pluralist’ forms of interest articulation and
those where a ‘corporatist’ pattern is closer to the norm.

Pluralist forms of participation

 ➔ Pluralist forms of interest group participation refer to those where particular sections of
society such as those representing employers, labor interests or ‘the environment’ tend to be
represented by a multiplicity of different organizations, none of which is considered by
politicians and civil servants to constitute the definitive ‘voice’ for the segment of
society/issue concerned.
➔ In this model, different employers groups compete with one another, different trades unions
compete for members with other unions and different environmental organizations compete
to reflect public opinion

Corporatist forms of participation

➔ In contrast to the pluralist model, in corporatist political systems the organization of interests
is much less competitive with particular societal interests such as those of employers and of
workers grouped together into so-called ‘peak associations’, which represent the vast majority
of actors within the sector concerned.
➔ The structure of interest organization in corporatist arrangements tends to be closely
intertwined with those of the government itself and in many instances the formulation of
legislation is negotiated directly with the relevant associational groupings.

Access and Tactics

➔ One of the key factors that may affect the character of interest representation in both pluralist
and corporatist systems is the degree to which groups can gain direct access to politicians
and civil servants.
➔ Where access to politicians and/or to bureaucrats is relatively constrained, then groups are
likely to resort to other political tactics.

Rational Choice Institutionalism and Interest Group Politics

➔ The decision to join a group is like all other decisions, a reasoned choice – it is first and
foremost an intentional act where people think through their decisions according to a
calculation of benefits over costs.

Rational choice and the problem of collective action

➔ From a rational choice perspective, even when clearly defined group interests do exist, the
motivations of the relevant individuals must always remain the focus of concern.
➔ Rational choice theorists emphasize that action that is in the common interests of the group
may not accord with the interests of the individuals that constitute such groups (Olson 1971).
➔ Since the results of political lobbying often have the character of a collective good.
➔ At the core of rational choice accounts is the notion that collective action problems strike
differentially according to the nature of the interest at hand.

Olson’s analysis
➔ According to Olson, the only way that numerically large interests might be able to overcome
such collective action problems is via the provision of material selective/private incentives,
such as low-cost health insurance or magazine subscriptions, which individuals can only
obtain by joining the group.
➔ According to Olson’s model numerically smaller interests face much less severe organizational
problems. Producer interests such as businesses and trades unions fall into this category.
 ➔ Free rider problem may be more easily overcome, because those shirking from collective
action are more readily distinguished from the population at large and hence are easier
targets for the introduction of sanctions and punishments.

Non-material benefits
➔ Solidary benefits may include such things as the opportunity to socialize and network with
like-minded people.
➔ Expressive benefits, in contrast, may include the desire to achieve public approval and status
among a particular social reference group from being seen to contribute to a fashionable
cause
➔ For example, the relative willingness or ability of the media to cover different issues is
hypothesized as a key factor in triggering the possibility of access to expressive benefits
➔ Within this context changes in technology, which have lowered the costs of mobilizing
expressive benefits, may have been a key factor facilitating the growth of protest
organizations and ‘new social movements’
➔ The spread of technologies, such as the Internet and mobile phones, has enabled groups to
circulate information about successful mobilisations with increasing speed.

Rational choice, interest group power and institutions

➔ A primary implication of Olson’s emphasis on the mobilization advantages of smaller groups
is the existence of a structural bias in favor of producer interests such as business
associations and trades unions at the expense of consumers and taxpayers.
➔ According to Olson and his followers, however, even where political processes appear to be
pluralistic (as opposed to those which seem more monopolistic or corporatist), appearances
are typically deceptive.

Rational choice institutionalism and the comparative politics of interest groups

➔ When comparing patterns of collective action across different states, institutional rational
choice suggests that variations in the extent of group activity are affected by the underlying
nature of collective action problems and the manner in which political institutions operate to
raise or to lower the costs of mobilization.
➔ That the scale of collective action problems is a key variable affecting the pattern of interest
group action and the distribution of political power may, from a rational choice perspective,
account for some of the most significant variations between the political economies of
developed and developing nations.
➔ From a rational choice perspective, an additional ingredient affecting the extent of group
mobilization is the degree of stability within the political system. More stable political
conditions may enable groups to build the capacity to organize collectively, relative to those
where the rules of political engagement are less fixed.
➔ Just as political institutions and policies may lower the costs of collective action, so they may
also raise the costs of interest group activity and hence intensify the free-rider problem.

Cultural Institutionalism and Interest Group Politics

➔ Whereas rational choice institutionalism focuses on the incentives for individuals to join
particular sorts of groups, from the perspective of cultural theory the decision to join a group
is not best understood as a rational decision at all.
 ➔ Rather, the interests of individuals and their membership of interest organizations is largely a
product of habitual action reflective of prevailing ideas and perceptions widely shared by
members of the societies concerned.
➔ People define their interests in line with meanings, symbols and ritual practices derived from
the cultural environment (Wildavsky, 1987)
➔ Weberian view that individuals who share similar economic roles or have a similar income and
pattern of consumption, tend to develop a shared set of cultural values and sense of social
status, relative to groups performing different economic roles or with differing levels of
income (Weber, 1968).

Culture and the basis of interest mobilization

➔ ‘Class-based’ theories of interest representation form the core of cultural institutional
accounts.
➔ It is important, however, to distinguish the sense in which the term ‘class’ is used by cultural
theorists from that adopted by structuralists and especially Marxists.
➔ First, following Weber, although cultural institutionalism recognises that class relationships
can involve forms of domination and exploitation, there is no necessary connection between
the existence of different economic classes and exploitation.
➔ Second, whereas in Marxism the class position of individuals is a product of property relations
and ownership characteristics – the proletariat are those who do not own ‘means of
production’, whereas the bourgeoisie are those that do – in cultural theory ‘class’ is defined in
terms of groups possessing similar incomes or occupational characteristics and the
attitudes, values and manners that are associated with such traits.
➔ For cultural theory the character of the occupation that one is employed in is also likely to be a
key element in the makeup of the relevant identity. People will seek not only to maintain or
enlarge their incomes, but will also attempt to defend the status and social perception of the
occupational group to which they belong
➔ Values, beliefs and perceptions shared by members of similar income or occupational groups
may be related to issues of social class and the economic role of particular groups, but from a
cultural perspective such values are not coterminous with economic interests per se.
➔ A cultural institutional perspective points to a complex mosaic of factors that motivate
collective action. The precise mix of economic or class-based interests, those based on
attitudinal or cause-based motives, and the intersection between the two, will, according to
this perspective, vary across countries depending on the way in which different groups and the
values they represent are oriented to the political culture at hand.

Cultural institutionalism and the comparative politics of interest groups

➔ What matters from a culturalist standpoint is that variations in social norms and practices
are the key explanatory factor which can account for differences in the power structures and
the outcomes of interest group politics that we observe across states.
➔ ‘Business’, however, is not a unified entity with an identical set of interests so which particular
business groups are in positions of power may vary according to the cultural context
concerned.
➔ Variations in cultural norms may, according to cultural theories, also be the key to explaining
the manner in which the political process incorporates interest group demands.
➔ It is also the case that variations in cultural values may account for differences in the behavior
of interest groups themselves.
Structural Institutionalism and Interest Group Politics
➔ The dynamics of interest group politics also provide one of the central themes of structural
institutionalism.
➔ Rather than being defined in terms of relationships to an overarching set of values, however,
the interests of individuals as group members are seen to be determined by their relationship
to macro-political and economic structures such as capitalism, globalization and the
nation-state.

Structure and the basis of interest mobilization

➔ Similar to the cultural perspective, a primary basis for interest mobilization in the
structuralist ontology is that of ‘class’. Class, however, is defined in a more restrictive sense
than in Weberian influenced cultural theory.
➔ Interest group politics, therefore, is primarily a battle between ‘capital’ and ‘labor’. Capitalists
as a class are, owing to their control of the means of production, able to extract ‘surplus value’
from the proletariat and it is the battle to control this surplus that is the primary focus of the
‘class struggle’.

Structure, institutions and interest group power

➔ If the class position of social actors is the primary mobilizing force behind interest groups
then, according to structural institutionalism, class is also the primary determinant of the
power exercised by social groups.
➔ Marxist accounts, in particular, maintain that the state apparatus either operates directly in
the interests of the ruling class, or allows differential access to its members so that their
interests are reflected in whatever policy decisions are made.
➔ Not all versions of structural theory adopt such a hard-line Marxist analysis. Institutionalist
theories which focus more on the structural logic of maintaining the position of the state
itself or of the economy, rather than ‘capitalism’ tend not to ascribe all power to a uniform
capitalist class, but instead emphasize the influence of particular groups drawn from both
capital and labor.
➔ In comparative terms, structural institutionalism focuses on the location of different states
and the interests that they respond to in relation to macro-political structures such as the
international economy.

Integrating Theories of Interest Group Politics

➔ The most significant contribution of rational choice theory is its capacity to provide the
important ‘micro-foundations’ that are necessary to understand the factors that drive
collective action and the capacity of different groups to exercise power.
➔ Both cultural and structural theories with their emphasis on class-based or sectorally based
interests need to provide an account of how these groups are able to organize politically.
➔ Classes and sectors are presented as unitary actors that somehow appear on the political
stage as pre-formed groups.
➔ It is here that rational choice theory with its focus on individual incentives can provide an
important contribution with its analysis of the differential effect of collective action problems.
➔ Cultural theories add to our understanding of interest group phenomena by drawing attention
to the significance of norms and values as mobilizing tools.
➔ Groups of people who share similar values, attitudes and traditional practices are more likely
to overcome collective action problems than those who do not.
 ➔ The role of values and identity needs to be addressed by rational choice theorists.
➔ Structural institutionalism is also useful insofar as it draws attention to the way in which
macroeconomic changes can have substantial effects on the interests of different groups and
their capacity to overcome collective action problems.
➔ Technological shifts, meanwhile, can shift the balance of power between different social
groups by raising the status of some groups and lowering that of others, and by altering the
structure of costs and benefits associated with successful collective action.

Topic 4: Civil Society and Social Movements

What is CIVIL SOCIETY?

- According to Britannica, civil society, is a dense network of groups, communities, networks,
and ties that stand between the individual and the modern state.
- According to Oxford Dictionary, society is considered as a community of citizens linked by
common interests and collective activity.
- Civil society comprises organizations that are not associated with the government—including
schools and universities, advocacy groups, professional associations, churches, and cultural
institutions (business sometimes is covered by the term civil society and sometimes not).
- They are an important source of information for both citizens and the government.
- They monitor government policies and actions and hold government accountable.
- They engage in advocacy and offer alternative policies for the government, the private sector,
and other institutions.
- They deliver services, especially to the poor and underserved.
- They defend citizen rights and work to change and uphold social norms and behaviors

What is a Social Movement?

- A group of people involved in a conflict with clearly identified opponents, sharing a common
identity, a unifying belief or a common programme, and acting collectively
- Includes at least three component elements:
(1) A group of people with a conflictual orientation towards an opponent
(2) A collective identity, and a set of common beliefs and goals
- Collective identities take shape on the basis of the informal networks and, in turn,
reinforce them. Organizational and individual actors with a common identity no longer
merely pursue specific goals, but come to regard themselves as elements of much
larger and encompassing processes of change—or resistance to change
(3) A repertoire of collective actions
- It is the most distinctive of the three elements. It entails the pursuit of a common
objective through joint action. The common objective may be of an economic,
religious, cultural, or political nature

- Movements are engaged in conflicts with some opponents. Conflicts may be of cultural

Movements vs. organizations

● The people participating in a movement must somehow be connected to one another, and they
must share a common goal. And that is achieved through having organizations
● A social movement is constituted by a network of multiple individual and organized actors
who, while keeping their autonomy and independence, engage in a sustained, coordinated
effort to achieve collective goals
 ● Political Parties or interest groups are more formally constituted. They may be a part of the
network that constitutes a social movement, but movements may not be reduced to them.

Social movements and media

● The public sphere can be defined as the arena where the political communication between the
decision-makers and the citizens take place (Neidhardt, 1994).
● The media plays a key role in politics because of the struggle for public attention involving all
political actors. However, those who do not have regular access to the decision-making
arenas—such as social movements—are particularly dependent on the media.
● Social movements have 2 types of strategies to draw attention to their cause:
1. Protest politics - mobilizing for protest events in the public sphere
The publicity created by protest events pursue two objectives:
(a) It is intended to create a public debate
(b) And to increase the ‘standing’ and the ‘legitimacy’ of the social movement in the
conflict in question.
2. Information politics - collecting credible information and deploying it strategically at
carefully selected sites.
Protest provides the opportunity for ‘information politics’: only when a movement has
obtained a certain public visibility can it successfully employ an information strategy.

● To be able to have some impact on the political process or on any other decision-makers,
social movements must draw the attention and support of the public. They need to become
visible in the media and their ideas have to obtain resonance and legitimacy among the
citizen public.
● Public debate is not the ultimate goal. The social movement seeks to have an impact on the
decision-makers in the conflict in question
● Creating controversy is a way of increasing opportunity by opening media access to movement
spokespersons and allies.

Theoretical approaches
1. Classical Model
- Refers to a set of theories with a common denominator.
- They all start from the notions of ‘structural strain’ or ‘breakdown’. (discontent)
- The classical model speaks of collective behavior rather than collective action
(1) Theory of collective behavior
(2) Theory of mass society
(3) Theories of relative deprivation
- In some versions of the theory, collective behavior is seen as irrational, disruptive,
dangerous, and excessive.

Critiques to Classical Model:

(1) They leap from invidious social conditions to discontent and from discontent to revolt. McAdam
points out that social strain is a necessary, but insufficient cause of social movements. To say that
social movements presuppose discontent is true but trivial: you need discontent to feed any political
challenge. To say that discontent causes social movement, however, is plainly false.
(2) Second, the atomistic focus of this model on the individual is problematic on a number of counts.
The most glaring is the assimilation of movement participants to deviant or marginal persons who are
characterized by their social isolations.
(3) Third, the critique stresses that movement participants are not primarily motivated by
psychological rewards, but that they are engaged in political action.

2. Resource mobilization model

- This theory views social movements as normal, rational, political challenges to aggrieved
groups.
- Implies a shift from a deterministic to an agency-oriented paradigm.
- This theory claims that discontent is more or less constant over time and thus inadequate as
a full explanation of social movements.
- Solidarity and organization as well as external support are treated as key resources for social
movements and receive central places in the theory; the more organization, the better the
prospects for mobilization and success.
- Tilly (1978:62-4) casts the organizational preconditions for the mobilization of social
movements in a neat formula based on Harrison White’s concept of a ‘catnet’(a set of
individuals comprising both a category (such as ‘women’) and a network). The more extensive
the groupness of the category, the greater the groupness of the category, in other words the
greater the group’s inclusiveness and the more pronounced its common identity, the denser
its internal network, the more organized it is:
- CATNESS x NETNESS = ORGANIZATION

● Three main factors which contribute to the news value of a protest event:
(a) Originality of an event (its surprise effect)
(b) The number of participants
(c) Their radicalism
● These three factors correspond to the 3 main forms in the action repertoire of contemporary
social movements:
(a) Confrontational types of action - these are new or illegal types of protest, not
characterized by violence, but provoking surprise and generating feelings of resistance
among authorities or the public. (Examples are occupying public buildings, and street
blockades)
(b) Demonstrative types of action - are more formal (examples are demonstrations,
marches, meetings)
(c) Violent types of actions - which are obviously involving violence like sacking stores,
and killing public officials.
Critiques to the resource mobilization approach:
(1) McAdam Points to the failure of its proponents to adequately differentiate organized change efforts
by excluded groups from those of established interest groups. This perspective normalized protest too
much. The distinction between conventional and unconventional forms of protest was seriously
blurred and the role of organizations in protest was exaggerated
(2) McAdam also criticizes the consistent failure by many of its proponents of resource mobilization to
acknowledge the political capabilities of the movement’s mass base.
(3) Failure to distinguish between objective social conditions from their subjective perception
(4) It has tended to neglect the role of leadership in social movements. It has failed to analyse the
influence of leadership on the strategy of social movements.

3. Political Process Model

- It is often treated as just another variant of the resource mobilization approach. However it
adds two elements to the previous model.
 (1) It is based on the idea that the social processes of the classical model do not
directly promote the mobilization of social movements, but do so only indirectly
through a restructuring or existing power relations. The concept of political
opportunity emphasizes resources external to the group that can be taken advantage
of even by weak or disorganized challengers
(2) The second element added refers to the subjective meaning people attribute to
their situation. Before collective action becomes possible, people must collectively
define their situations as unjust and subject to change through collective action.
McAdam refers to this condition as a cognitive liberation. This model has
subsequently been elaborated into a more encompassing ‘social movement paradigm’
which attempts to integrate the various models, but tends to neglect elements of the
classical models

Criticisms to the political process model:

1. The concept of the model has been criticized for its all-inclusive character. Used to explain so much,
it may ultimately explain nothing.
2. Critics point out that not all social movements are equally focused on the political process.
Movements challenging cultural authorities will have greater degree of autonomy from the political
context and thus be less adequately explained by the present approach.
3. The concept of opportunity often serves as a substitute for breakdown. Finally, Two additional
defects were identified with the political process model and its successor–the social movement
paradigm:
4. Their single-minded focus on single-actor movements and their indifference to the broader field of
contentious politics (which includes phenomena such as ethnic conflicts, nationalist episodes, and
revolutions)
5. The overwhelming tendency of their practitioners to study movements at the national level.
6. They sought to deduce key processes and mechanisms that constitute contentious politics

Political Opportunity Structure

- The political opportunity structure constituted what we could call the hard core of the political
process framework.
- Political opportunity structures influence the choice of protest strategies and the impact of
social movements on their environment

● The degree of openness of the political system is a function of its centralization and the degree
of its separation of power.
● Decentralization implies a multiplication of state actors and, therefore, of points of access and
decision-making.
● The greater the separation of power between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary,
and the greater the division of power within each one of these branches of government, the
 greater the degree of formal access for movement actors and the more limited the capacity of
the state to act.
● Four dimensions along which media systems can be compared:
(1) The development of media markets with particular emphasis on the strong or weak
development of a mass-circulation press.
(2) Political parallelism, the degree and nature of the links between the media and political
parties or, more broadly, the extent to which the media system reflects the major political
divisions in society.
(3) The development of journalistic professionalism.
(4) The degree and nature of state intervention in the media system
● Based on these criteria, they distinguish between three (3) models of media systems:
(a) The mediterranean or polarized pluralist model
(b) The north/central european or democratic corporalist model
(c) The north atlantic or liberal model

The extent to which social movement actors obtain access to the decision-making arenas not only
depends on the formal institutional structure, but also on more informal preconditions, which is
called cultural models

● A first example of cultural models refer to the prevailing strategies of the authorities with
regard to social movements.
● This is distinguished between exclusive strategies (repressive, confrontational, polarizing)
and integrative strategies (facilitative, cooperative, assimilative)
● A second major category of cultural models concerns the political-cultural or symbolic
opportunities that determine what kind of ideas become visible for the public, resonate with
public opinion and are held to be legitimate by the audience. This is called the discursive
opportunity structure
● The cultural models can be combined with the political institutional structures in order to
arrive at more complex and more focused opportunity sets

Configuration of power
These next set of variables refers to the configurations of actors
(1) Protagonists - the configuration of allies (policy makers, public authorities, poltiical parties,
interest groups, the media, and related movements)
(2) Antagonists - the configuration of adversaries (or opponents– public authorities, repressive
agents, counter-movements)
(3) Bystanders - the not directly involved (but nevertheless attentive audience)

Emergence of social movements

Two key factors of emergence:
(1) A political crisis - is brought about by the intensification of international pressure that
leads to a military and fiscal crisis of the state)
(2) Agrarian socio-political structures

Mobilization of social movements

In a cross-national study of four Western European countries they found that:
(a) The openness of the swiss system facilitates the mobilization for collective action
 (b) The existence of direct democracy institutions in particular invites citizens to mobilize
collectively.
(c) The openness of the system and the availability of conventional channels of protest have a
strong moderating effect on the strategic chioces of the swiss movement actors.
(d) Another example illustrates the importance of the media for the level of mobilization of
social movements today.

The volume and form of social movement mobilization is heavily conditioned by the relative opennes
of the political context and by the congruence between media frames and movement frames, which in
turn is conditioned by the political context in which it is embedded.

Success of social movements

● Social movements do not only intent to successfully mobilize, they want to have an impact on
political decision-making or on society at large.
● Their impact on policy decisions is of key importance.
● But outcomes are still less often studied than the emergence and mobilization of social
movements.
● There is no one-to-one correspondence between the level of mobilization and the success of
social movements. Strong mobilization does not necessarily lead to profound impacts if the
political opportunity structures are not conducive to change. However, weak mobilization may
have a disproportionate impact owing to properties of the political opportunity structure.

Topic 5: Political Culture and Political Communication

Political Culture
- Sodaro defined Political Culture as a pattern of shared values, moral norms, beliefs,
expectations, and attitudes that relate to politics and its social context.
- Caramani concurred with Sodaro's definition by pointing out how the study of Political Culture
be unpacked, upon which, Caramani cited the need to analyze the impact of ethnicity, religion,
and value orientation in the political life.

Political Culture is inherently a recognition of behavioral factors within the citizens of the state that
determines their preferences, more specifically, in the political lens.
● Dominant Political Culture - a collection of attitudes that are broadly shared by the political
elites and a large proportion of the population.
● Political Subculture - a political culture that deviates from the dominant culture in key
respects.

Political culture by Almond and Verba, In their work, they have identified three political attitudes,
namely: parochial, subject, and participant attitudes.
● Parochial attitude are those who are typically deferent and alienated towards the political
system,
● Subject attitude which typically have passive relations to the political system; and
● Participant attitude who are typically knowledgeable about politics and tend to be involved in
voting and other political activities
Influences of Political Culture
● Value Orientations
● Ethnicity
● Religion
● Tradition

Value Orientation - are a key factor in shaping political culture, as they reflect the fundamental beliefs
and values that guide political behaviour and decision-making. Caramani argues that different value
orientations can lead to different political cultures.

This particular dimension affects:

- Support for political institutions, using data on satisfaction with government and
satisfaction with democracy, suggests that support for political institutions is linked to
satisfaction with democracy. It seeks to determine which mass attitudes result in political
satisfaction with the government
- Interpersonal trust between individuals; attempts to uncover mass beliefs in social
interactions among anonymous individuals that are conducive to a democratic culture
- Post-materialism, which is characterized by a shift in the priorities of voters away from
economic and material concerns towards post-material values such as environmental
protection, gender equality, and individual rights
- Secularization which refers to the process by which religious institutions and values lose
influence in public life. It is also decisive for the stability of the democratic regime is the
support for a secular conception of politics.

Ethnicity - According to Caramani, ethnicity can influence political culture through several
mechanisms, including: Race, nationalism, and language. Which all affects the political support, or
the lack thereof, for ethnopolitical parties or social movements.

Religion - can play a significant role in shaping political culture, especially in developing countries, by
providing a source of moral authority and guidance for political behavior: Many religious traditions
offer guidance on how to live a good life and how to treat others, which can shape people's political
attitudes and behaviors. The core analysis of the civilizations of the world (Weber, 1920 & 1936). It is
also linked to the rise of fundamentalism.

However there are dynamics when it comes to this aspect, these are:
● Religious fragmentation
- religious fragmentation in a society or country may follow divisions between the major
world religions, such as Christianity versus Islam and etc.
● Religious heterogeneity also involves strong political tensions between creeds or sects within
distinct religions.
● Religious homogeneity, or the presence of a single dominant religion within a society, has
influence on the mind of a country. It can promote social cohesion through a sense of shared
identity and can also further disenfranchise minority religions that can lead to political
tensions and conflicts, particularly if minority religions are not afforded the same rights and
protections as the dominant religion.

Tradition - The study of political culture emphasizes the present, but also probes into how the past
impacts the present in the form of lingering political traditions. According to Caramani, cultures
inherited from the past may have a great relevance for the present, if they form part of the present
collective consciousness.
 - tradition can shape the values and beliefs of a society, including attitudes towards authority,
democracy, and social justice. These values and beliefs can then shape the way that political
institutions and processes are organized and the ways in which citizens participate in the
political process.
- tradition can also shape the way that political actors behave and the strategies that they use
to achieve their goals.

Ideology, in its most basic sense, is a coherent set of ideas that typically includes:

1. a theory about political relationships and the role of the state

2. a notion of what constitutes political legitimacy and the highest political values
3. an action program indicating the goals, ideals, policies, and tactics to be pursued by the state,
political elites, and the masses

1. Liberalism. In its most basic sense, liberalism is the democracy that we enjoy. In its oldest and most
textbook definition, liberalism is a system of government that guarantees liberty. The concept of
liberalism found its root in Great Britain by the late 17th century, a time when the monarchy was the
dominant system.

2. Socialism. In its most basic definition, Socialism is a political and economic system in which
private enterprise (capitalism) is abolished and replaced by some form of common ownership of
factories, farms, and other productive enterprises. It was basically a reaction to the excesses of the
industrial revolution.
Marxism. argues that social change comes about through economic class struggle. It is a very
complicated thought, however, as his contemporaries went about different ways of
interpreting and implementing the thought that Marx founded. Unlike liberalism where there
isn’t a far departure between conservatives and neo-liberals, evolutions of socialism, or at
least, one proposed by Marx can be divided into two fundamentally different systems:
Leninism or Soviet-style communism and Western-oriented social democracy.
- Leninism or Soviet-style communism, is essentially a way of thinking about how the
communist party is organized. In which, it proposes the establishment of the
dictatorship of the proletariat led by a revolutionary vanguard party as the political
prelude to the establishment of communism. As you can see from its definition, it was
basically how the then-USSR was run after the communist party successfully executed
the coup d’etat that abolished the Russian monarchy.
- Social Democracy subscribes to the idea of a political system according to which
social justice and equality can be achieved within the framework of a market economy.
It is essentially a combination of economic socialism and political democracy. Unlike
the tenets of Marxism as well as Leninism that subscribed to a revolutionary path,
Social Democrats desire a share of participation in government affairs by winning
democratic elections.

3. Fascism. Fascism is largely an ideology adopted in situations where democracy failed to provide a
solution for the misfortunes of the state, as was shown in Germany and Italy after World War I. They
then came to the conclusion that democracy itself was the problem. That conclusion then brought
upon a political movement that embraces far-right nationalism and the forceful suppression of any
opposition, all overseen by an authoritarian government.

Explaining Policy Differences Using Political Culture

Political scientist Daniel Elazar identified political culture as one reason that different states
enact different policies to deal with similar problems. In fact, he identifies three political subcultures
which combine to form the American political culture which he differentiates from the German
political culture, the French political culture, or the Mexican political culture. These political
subcultures are:

Individualistic

● The individualistic subculture relies on the marketplace.

● Government's role is limited, primarily to keep the marketplace functioning.
● Politicians' motives for running for office are based on material self-interests and to advance
themselves professionally.
● Bureaucracy is viewed negatively because it hinders patronage.
● Corruption is tolerated because politics IS dirty.
● Political competition is partisan.
● Elections are oriented toward gaining office and do not deal with issues.
● View originated in Middle Atlantic states, settled by German and English groups.
● Migrated to lower Midwest, Missouri, and western states.
● "Government should never get in the way!"

Moralistic

● Opposite of individualistic.
● Emphasizes the commonwealth.
● Government advances the public interest and is a positive force in the lives of citizens.
● Politics revolves around issues.
● Politicians run for office to advance issues.
● Corruption is not tolerated because government service is seen as public service.
● Bureaucracy is viewed favorably as a way to achieve the public good.
● It is a citizen's duty to participate in politics.
● View was brought to the United States by the Puritans who settled in New England.
● Transported across the upper Great Lakes into the Midwest to the Northwest.
● Values reinforced by waves of Scandinavian and northern European groups.

Traditionalistic

● Middle ground between individualistic and moralistic.

● Ambivalent attitude toward the marketplace and the common good.
● Government is maintain the existing social and economic hierarchy.
● Politicians come from society's elite.
● Politicians have a family obligation to govern.
● Ordinary citizens are not expected to participate in politics or even to vote.
● Politics is competition between rival factions within the elite rather than between class-based
parties.
● Bureaucracy is viewed with suspicion because it interferes with personal relationships.
● View was brought to the United States by people who settled the southern colonies.
● Built a plantation-centered agricultural system.
● Descendants moved westward through the southern and southwestern states.

Political Communication
- Caramani discusses the role of political communication in shaping political culture. He argues
that political communication can be used by politicians and parties to shape public opinion,
mobilize support, and influence policy decisions.

Three main actors:

 ● In politics, political parties play a central role, as they are responsible for communicating the
views and policies of their party to the public. Political parties use a variety of tools, such as
campaign advertisements, social media, and public rallies, to communicate with the public.
● Media, plays a crucial role in shaping the public's perception of politics and politicians. News
organizations, such as television networks, newspapers, and online news outlets, report on
political events and issues, and help to shape the public's understanding of politics.
● the voters. There are several ways in which voters can impact political communication:
1. By voting
2. By participating in the political process
3. By expressing their views through the media

Approaches to Political Communication

From the perspective of political communication, a heavy interest obviously lies in the effect
communication has on citizens (and potential voters). The development of thinking about media
effects may be said to have a 'natural history', as it has also been influenced by several environmental
factors, including the interests of governments and law-makers, changing technology, and historical
events.

In communication research, there are four phases:

1. Media as having a direct and decisive impact on citizens' beliefs and orientations.
2. Media as having only minimal effects
3. Media effects returns us to the concept of a powerful media,
4. Media effects is marked by a shift in scholarly attention towards changing cognitions rather
than attitudes

New Political Communication

According to political scientist Daniele Caramani, "new political communication" refers to the ways in
which political actors and parties use new technologies and platforms to communicate with the
public and with each other. In recent years, the proliferation of social media and other digital
platforms has significantly changed the way that politicians and political parties communicate with
the public, and has led to the emergence of new forms of political communication.

Caramani argues that new political communication has several key features, including:

1. Greater interactivity
2. Greater accessibility
3. Greater speed

Greater interactivity: New technologies and platforms, such as social media, allow politicians and
parties to interact more directly with the public. This can enable them to gather feedback and gauge
public opinion more effectively.

Greater accessibility: New political communication technologies and platforms also make it easier
for politicians and parties to reach a wider audience. This can help to increase political participation
and engagement, particularly among younger and more digitally savvy voters.

Greater speed: New political communication technologies allow politicians and parties to
disseminate information and messages more quickly than ever before. This can enable them to
respond more quickly to events and developments, and can also create new challenges for traditional
media outlets.